In a Chemical Weapons Debate, Russia Tries to Change the Subject

LONDON — Russia demonstrated Tuesday that one response to fielding an unwelcome question is to ask a different question. And another, and another, and many more after that.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is meeting in The Hague to decide whether to start determining who was to blame for chemical weapons attacks, rather than just saying whether they occurred.

The change, proposed by Britain, is clearly aimed at Russia and its ally, Syria, two countries recently accused of using chemical weapons, which they deny. Both oppose the measure.

But before it could take up the merits of the proposal, the organization spent hours batting down questions and objections from the Russian delegation — and, to a lesser extent, from representatives of Syria and its other main ally, Iran — about how a vote would be conducted. That vote is expected to take place on Wednesday.

In proceedings broadcast on the organization’s website, they asked questions whose answers were clear, questions that the organization said it had answered before the meeting, and questions that were answered (often twice, or three or four times) during the meeting. Even as some Western representatives expressed impatience, the Russians repeatedly challenged the organization’s interpretation of its own rules.

It took almost three hours for member countries of the organization, which monitors compliance with a chemical weapons ban treaty, just to vote to adopt a meeting agenda.

“The picture is not very understandable and clear,” said Alexander V. Shulgin, the Russian ambassador. “When there is such confusion, we can’t move forward.”

The Canadian ambassador, Sabine Nölke, retorted: “Canada is not confused. The rules are clear.”

The Russians “have made it quite clear they intend to dispute everything,” said Ambassador Kenneth D. Ward of the United States.

For two years, there was an international system for assigning blame for chemical attacks, but Russia killed it. In response to Syria’s long civil war, and repeated allegations that the government had used poison gas, the United Nations created a body, the Joint Investigative Mechanism, to work with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and determine culpability.

Last year, it reported that the government of Bashar Assad had used poison gas in Syria. Russia rejected that assertion, accusing the group of being a tool of Western propaganda, though Western countries and independent watchdog groups contend that Syria has used chemical weapons dozens of times, and rebel groups a smaller number of times.

In November, Russia used its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block renewal of the group’s mandate.

Britain has accused the Kremlin of carrying out a chemical attack in March on Sergei V. Skripal, a former Russian spy living in England, and his daughter, Yulia, who both survived. Russia has denied the claim, floating a variety of competing theories, but Britain’s closest allies, including the United States, have accepted its conclusions.

For years, critics of President Vladimir Putin’s government have accused it of using obfuscation and obstruction to thwart international bodies, particularly on topics like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, or the war in Syria.

Tuesday’s session could be seen as a master class in delay. Shulgin himself said, “I am very sorry that we are walking in place and walking in circles.”

How many of the organization’s 193 member countries had not paid their dues, Russia demanded to know. Which ones were they? Why not read out their names? Could they vote if they were behind on dues? Did they know whether they were allowed to vote?

Was there a quorum present? Did the countries in arrears count toward a quorum? What about countries that were provisional members, not yet accepted fully into the organization? Could they vote? Were they part of a quorum?

When the rules say that a vote on Britain’s motion must occur within 24 hours, does that period begin only after every country has had its say? Does it start after all proposed amendments have been considered? (These questions in particular seemed to exasperate Nölke, who insisted that the rules do not allow “for delegations to filibuster and run out the clock.”)

The organization’s officials said repeatedly that the answers were obvious (97 nations were needed for a quorum and 143 were present, for example), had been answered or were clearly laid out in the rules, which had been followed the same way in previous meetings.

“We have never had a problem with these issues in past sessions of the conference,” said Abdelouahab Bellouki of Morocco, the chairman of the group.

Finally, after most of the day had passed, member countries got around to addressing the substance of Britain’s proposal, which is backed by the European Union and the United States.

“No international body is working to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks,” said Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary. “If we are serious about upholding the ban on chemical weapons, that gap must be filled.”